“anything that’s entirely about data processing in the widest sense is an algorithm”? But I don’t think that maps onto the common usage of the term very well.
Not sure exactly what you have in mind. I do think “the kinds of things that would be discussed in current and future algorithms textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the brain does useful things (like navigating the world, avoiding threats, seeking opportunities, inventing tools and concepts, etc.), just as “the kinds of things that would be discussed in camera textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the human eye captures images.
Well, more specifically, the human eye is in the Venn diagram overlap between the design & engineering principles of image capture, and the biological constraints (e.g., the affordances of biological cells, and there has to be an evolutionary pathway, etc.). So to understand the human eye, you need to understand both the design principles from physics textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
By the same token, to understand the human brain, you need to understand both the design & engineering principles from algorithms textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
This seems to me like just a restatement of the Turing thesis, or I guess an application of the thesis to brains
Something like that. If you think it’s obvious, that’s great! I guess you’re not the target audience.
Hmm, okay. So after reflecting on this a bunch, I think the things that still bug me about this post after reading your clarification aren’t about factual merits but about implications and tone. I’m not sure what the best practice in such a case is, maybe just not saying anything is best. I guess tell me if you prefer I didn’t write this response lol. But decided to say it this time.
I think this post is a) mostly attacking a strawman, in that most people who you think disagree with you actually do so for different reasons (although not everyone, I concede some people will disagree with the algorithm thing as you define it) and b) even insofar as they do exist, the net effect of this post will be substantially negative because it’s antagonizing, mocking, and unpersuasive.
E.g.:
The hilarious irony of psychedelics is:[4]
Objectively, psychedelics should be the most clear-cut evidence you could imagine for the idea that the brain is a machine that runs an algorithm, and that the mind is something that this algorithm does. After all, these tiny molecules, which just so happen to lock onto a widespread class of neuron receptors, create seismic shifts in consciousness, beliefs, perceptions, and so on.
…And yet, the people who actually take psychedelics are much likelier to stop believing that. Ironic.
This would feel right at home in r/sneerclub, which is odd to me because your posts usually have a very humble vibe. And yea I guess I don’t understand what your theory of mind is for how something good will result from anyone reading this.
But yea feel free not to reply, and can not express similar things in the future if you want.
Not sure exactly what you have in mind. I do think “the kinds of things that would be discussed in current and future algorithms textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the brain does useful things (like navigating the world, avoiding threats, seeking opportunities, inventing tools and concepts, etc.), just as “the kinds of things that would be discussed in camera textbooks” is the right conceptual vocabulary for understanding how the human eye captures images.
Well, more specifically, the human eye is in the Venn diagram overlap between the design & engineering principles of image capture, and the biological constraints (e.g., the affordances of biological cells, and there has to be an evolutionary pathway, etc.). So to understand the human eye, you need to understand both the design principles from physics textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
By the same token, to understand the human brain, you need to understand both the design & engineering principles from algorithms textbooks and the biological constraints from biology textbooks.
Something like that. If you think it’s obvious, that’s great! I guess you’re not the target audience.
Hmm, okay. So after reflecting on this a bunch, I think the things that still bug me about this post after reading your clarification aren’t about factual merits but about implications and tone. I’m not sure what the best practice in such a case is, maybe just not saying anything is best. I guess tell me if you prefer I didn’t write this response lol. But decided to say it this time.
I think this post is a) mostly attacking a strawman, in that most people who you think disagree with you actually do so for different reasons (although not everyone, I concede some people will disagree with the algorithm thing as you define it) and b) even insofar as they do exist, the net effect of this post will be substantially negative because it’s antagonizing, mocking, and unpersuasive.
E.g.:
This would feel right at home in r/sneerclub, which is odd to me because your posts usually have a very humble vibe. And yea I guess I don’t understand what your theory of mind is for how something good will result from anyone reading this.
But yea feel free not to reply, and can not express similar things in the future if you want.